Letters: European project under pressure

In a time of austerity and economic contraction, trade is the best way to stimulate the economy and create jobs (What has the EU ever done for us, 26 January). Britain is part of the biggest trading bloc in the world and of a single market of 500 million customers. Our EU membership gives us privileged access to that market, makes our economy more attractive to foreign investment and strengthens our and the EU’s hand in negotiating international trade agreements.

Britain must use its membership to work with our EU partners to strengthen and deepen the single market, expand it in areas like services, energy and online trading, and promote investment on research, innovation and new technologies. The wellbeing of our economy is linked both to the wellbeing of the eurozone and the single market as a whole. We call on the government to remain involved in efforts to reform the eurozone and lead initiatives to expand the single market and make Britain and the EU more competitive.Charles Kennedy MPPresident, European Movement,Lord Inglewood, Lord Brittan, Lord Kinnock, Lord Liddle, Baroness Williams,Lord Dykes,Baroness Quin, Lord Berkeley,Menzies Campbell MP, Dennis McShane MP, Sheila Gilmore MP, Robert Buckland MP,Neil Carmichael MP,Mike Gapes MP, Duncan Hames MP, Martin Horwood MP

• In the context of the growing euro crisis, it is interesting to note that Gordon Brown – while he was chancellor of the exchequer – argued strongly for the repatriation of EU structural funds. Writing in the Times in 2003, he said: “When the economic and social, as well as the democratic, arguments on structural funds now and for the future so clearly favour subsidiarity in action, there is no better place to start than by bringing regional policy back to Britain.”

The article was written in support of a Treasury document called A Modern Regional Policy for the United Kingdom, published in March of that year. The paper argued that there was much time and money being wasted in processing contributions from countries such as Britain, only to send the contributions back in the form of structural funding.

Much easier and simpler, the then chancellor seemed to be saying, to let Britain keep the cash and get on with the job of using our own structural funds. The pressure group Open Europe has calculated that Britain would have been better off by something like £4.2bn if Brown’s system had been adopted. What is more, some of the most deprived UK regions are currently short-changed by the structural funds, because EU allocations are based on inflexible, one-size-fits all criteria. For instance, the West Midlands has the lowest disposable income per capita in the UK, yet pays the EU £3.55 for every £1 it receives back in structural funding, according to Open Europe estimates. In contrast, if Labour’s policy had been pursued, each region would have experienced a rise in the amount of subsidies they receive by around 45% compared with now. For example, Cornwall would have received an additional £207m over seven years.

Alan Johnson, also argued in 2003, that regional policy ought to be “resourced domestically in richer member states, like the UK, with the institutions and the financial strength to do it. This would end the unnecessary and inefficient recycling of funds between richer member states, like the UK, via Brussels …”The Cameron government seems to have abandoned any attempt to change EU structural funding to concentrate on trying to freeze the EU budget – a strategy which has already failed. Perhaps this government could take a look at what was being argued for a few years ago – it could benefit us all.John Cryer MP, Jack Straw MP, Katy Clark MP, Thomas Docherty MP, Dennis Skinner MP, Gisela Stuart MP, Andrew Smith MP, Mike Wood MP Robert Ainsworth MP, John McDonnell MP, Kelvin Hopkins MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Grahame Morris MP, Ian Lavery MP, Ian Davidson MP, Frank Field MP, Graham Stringer MP

• Anthony Gidden’s claim that “the greatest threat to democracy would be the collapse of the euro” is tosh (Report, 26 January). The unelected technocrats who have usurped power in Greece and Italy in a vain attempt to salvage the euro pose a real threat to liberal democracy. Markets are trumping democracy.

Ever more austerity will choke off economic growth, increase inequality, and erode trust in government. Far from bringing Europe closer together, the diktat of the Maastricht criteria and semi-permanent austerity are already stoking nationalism and intense distrust of other European nations and will eliminate what little enthusiasm remains for the European project.

It is high time to look long and hard at the architecture of the single currency and turn this straitjacket into a positive instrument that promotes growth. Yet Giddens suggests the opposite: more pain, more cuts to social protection and healthcare, higher unemployment, and, ultimately, more stagnation. Ill-conceived as the euro might be, it might deserve a second chance. If the price to pay is the one Giddens suggests, however, it is time, and not just for southern Europe, to head for the exit.Dr Georg MenzGoldsmiths College, London

• Ian Traynor recognises that the effect of the eurozone’s “fiscal compact” treaty would be to “… outlaw Keynesian economics” (Merkel casts doubt on hope of saving Greece from meltdown, 26 January). To my knowledge he is the first person to express publicly this alarming fact. Control over monetary policy has been ceded to the Bank of England and the import of the “fiscal compact” treaty is that control of fiscal policy would be ceded to the European court of justice. In vetoing the treaty David Cameron acted to ensure that the British people, via its elected government, could continue to choose its own fiscal policy; not inappropriate in the birthplace of Maynard Keynes. Why are Miliband and Clegg so concerned about Cameron’s action in vetoing this challenge to our democracy?Dr Peter RiachLondon

• Umberto Eco’s proposals and thoughts about Europe (‘Europe will never be a United States’, 27 January), about celebrating the Erasmus programme and widening its scope, are timely and cast a useful light onto British/English attitudes to allegiances.

I find it much more purposeful and accurate to regard myself as European rather than English, and am proud of having children who think similarly and speak other European languages. My partner and I took early advantage of being able to work freely in the EU and later we sent our eldest daughter to school in Germany in order to learn the language and imbibe the culture; our friends there became her friends. I now live in the Czech Republic.

The idea of skilled UK workers being encouraged though some similar scheme to Erasmus is an excellent one. We are always slow and limited in this regard, German and French Gesellen have long come over here to work and gain experience, and we would benefit from similar forms of training.Helen CarpenterLondon